Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Wikipedia offers a good definition that I'd subscribe to:

Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.  ... Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left-right spectrum.

Cheeto wants to be beyond checks + balances. Indeed, he says he can pardon himself. I can go point by point on this but my stomach is beginning to retch.

yep, that's a nice, simple definition, and it would seem to apply. cuntry's probably f'ed for good, we should give it back to nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Really?

From your cite: "By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. ...   ...  This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007. As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million subprime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government. When these mortgages failed in unprecedented numbers in 2008, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S., they weakened all financial institutions and caused the financial crisis."

Well, so much to unpack here, but let me take a stab at it: 1- In 2008, Lehman Brothers failed for $250 billion....... this is before the "crisis" in Fannie & Freddie claimed by the author to be responsible.

2nd, how does the gov't create demand? I thought the gov't could only suppress economic activity? If these mortgages were risky, why did bankers take them? Shouldn't capitalists understand risk/reward ratios? The author gets this exactly backwards....... if gov't spending created demand, then ObamaCare must have made everyone sick, right?

No, from the point that the author blames Clinton because he signed -a- bill which was partly behind the expansion of the subprime market (written by Republicans BTW), to the pint where he fudges the math and says a mortgage problem involving about 10% of the assets of ONE of the major investment bank failures, which also happened before the subprime meltdown anyway...... it's an attempt to slime the victims.

-DSK

Because Frank and Co fucked with market incentives....

"His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Dog said:

Because Frank and Co fucked with market incentives....

"His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators".

Umm, Fannie and Freddie had their ups and downs and eventually crashed hard..... that was part of the bag crash but not the main cause since the amounts were relatively trivial compared to capital markets.

Do the math, for once. And try applying economic principles consistently, not just when you have somebody to blame.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Umm, Fannie and Freddie had their ups and downs and eventually crashed hard..... that was part of the bag crash but not the main cause since the amounts were relatively trivial compared to capital markets.

Do the math, for once. And try applying economic principles consistently, not just when you have somebody to blame.

-DSK

What you referred to as "predatory banking" was compelled by the idiots in Washington. The banks were simply complying with the Community Reinvestment Act when making bad loans. And the GSE's were doing Washington's bidding by creating a secondary market for those bad loans. Our government was to blame for the sub-prime meltdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dog said:

What you referred to as "predatory banking" was compelled by the idiots in Washington

Not all of it. My experience in a refi was to have a interest only adjustable rate mortgage pushed hard on me (didn't bite) to the point of having three levels of executives call and try to sell me on that product. I have excellent credit and rates were at about 4 1/4%. They were pushing that subprime product because they could earn higher commissions on it. They made very convincing arguments for it. Someone with less knowledge very well could have bought in and ended upside down when the market went south.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Dog said:

Our government was to blame for the sub-prime meltdown.

Our government didn't create demand for the CDOs, investors that wanted high returns did. High returns come with risk, in the loan business one of these risks is called "bad loans".

I'll file this under "lying Dog hates capitalism".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Our government didn't create demand for the CDOs, investors that wanted high returns did. High returns come with risk, in the loan business one of these risks is called "bad loans".

I'll file this under "lying Dog hates capitalism".

If we had a capitalist system the masses would not have bailed out the stupid greedheads who were too smart to fail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Dog said:

What you referred to as "predatory banking" was compelled by the idiots in Washington. The banks were simply complying with the Community Reinvestment Act when making bad loans. And the GSE's were doing Washington's bidding by creating a secondary market for those bad loans. Our government was to blame for the sub-prime meltdown.

Nope

What I referred to as "predatory banking" is fraud pure and simple. Not subprime or low income lending.

"Predatory" is when a bank forecloses on a house they never issued a mortgage on. This happened to tens of thousands of people. Or a bank which buys a mortgage and changes the terms.... "you owe a balloon payment every six months now, not what you signed but too bad." Or loan initiators who wrote up a mortgage for twice what the house cost, and pocketed 40% of the money. Etc etc etc

There were lots of other tricks being played, little of it was legal, and one of the things that did not happen under Obama was prosecution of so much bank crime.

 

30 minutes ago, pond sailor said:
52 minutes ago, Dog said:

What you referred to as "predatory banking" was compelled by the idiots in Washington

Not all of it. My experience in a refi was to have a interest only adjustable rate mortgage pushed hard on me (didn't bite) to the point of having three levels of executives call and try to sell me on that product. I have excellent credit and rates were at about 4 1/4%. They were pushing that subprime product because they could earn higher commissions on it. They made very convincing arguments for it. Someone with less knowledge very well could have bought in and ended upside down when the market went south.

 

Going upside down on a mortgage is only a problem if you're laid off and MUST sell. It's just like going upside down on buying a car..... as long as you're driving it, and you can afford to keep up the payments, who cares...... not a smart way to run ones' household finances IMHO but lots of people live hand-to-mouth and that's a fact of life.

You're lucky the bank didn't simply "lose your paperwork" and insist that you had indeed signed one of those mortgages, or slip a joker in the deck when you signed.

IMHO the biggest part of the problem was the mixing of collateralized debt into all kinds of other bonds. It poisoned the whole capital market. The way it worked is that shares of mortgages would be divided up, then mixed, and used as an investment. High rate of return from the risky (or crooked) ones, safety from the stable (legal) ones. When I first heard about these, in the early 2000s, having lost a bit in the 1999/2000 mini-crash (we thought of it as bad, at the time), I liked the idea. The more I learned about it, the less I liked it, and eventually pulled out.

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

If we had a capitalist system the masses would not have bailed out the stupid greedheads who were too smart to fail. 

just don't call it socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

just don't call it socialism.

Socialism is only for liabilities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, not a problem “unless you lose your job”. I did, company went tits up. My point is why we’re they pushing an adjustable rate product in times of low rates. It was only going to tick down a point or two max. Adjustable rate is a product for times of high interest. It was a con to earn the originators the highest commission. They knew better and still wanted to screw the customer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

If we had a capitalist system the masses would not have bailed out the stupid greedheads who were too smart to fail. 

capitalism at its best (from the wapo, so it might be fake news):

Bailout highly profitable for taxpayers, when you look at the right numbers

 
 
January 3, 2015

It’s always nice to start a year by using the right numbers, especially if they are upbeat ones. So let’s start 2015 with the good news that U.S. taxpayers are far more ahead on the financial bailout than almost anyone realizes.

Let me explain. In mid-December, when the Treasury unloaded its final shares of Ally Financial, its last major Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) holding, and declared the books more or less closed, it said that U.S. taxpayers had made $15.6 billion. That touched off a debate about what that $15.6 billion bailout profit meant.

But you know what? By my math, that $15.6 billion is only about 1/25 of the profit that taxpayers have realized on the bailout. That’s because TARP was only a minor part of the resources that the government committed to the bailout.

Conflating TARP with the total bailout is a classic example of how politicians and the media often obsess about politically sensitive numbers while far more meaningful real-world numbers are ignored. Congress had to approve the high-profile, controversial program, making it intensely political. But the real guts of the bailout — backstopping the world financial system, driving down interest rates, preventing mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from defaulting on their massive debts — were administrative actions that didn’t need congressional approval. Thank God.

TARP, which peaked at $411 billion despite having been authorized to spend $700 billion, was less than 3 percent of taxpayers’ bailout exposure, which totaled $14 trillion. (Details, from a 2011 piece I wrote for Fortune magazine, are in the box adjacent.)

 

The actual taxpayer profit on the bailout is about $350 billion, by my math. That’s right, $350 billion. All in cash, most of which has held down the federal budget deficit over the past six years. That’s serious money, even by today’s standards.

Where is my $350 billion number from? I’m glad you asked. I start with the $15.6 billion TARP number. Then I add the cash profit that taxpayers have made on the Fannie-Freddie bailout. That’s $37.9 billion, according to the most recent numbers from the Federal Housing Finance Agency — the difference between the $187.5 billion that taxpayers advanced to Fannie and Freddie when they were in extremis, and the $225.4 billion that the firms have paid the Treasury. That brings the total to $53.5 billion.

Now we come to the big and nonobvious number: the excess profit that the Federal Reserve has made from the bailout, and given to Treasury. The Fed has added trillions of dollars of securities to its balance sheet as part of its various programs to put cash into the world financial system and hold down interest rates to help the economy. The Fed did this by creating money out of thin air and using it to buy interest-bearing securities. That interest is pure profit to the Fed — and the Fed, by law, turns over its surplus profit to Treasury.

2005 $21.5 billion
2006 $29.1 billion
2007 $34.6 billion
2008 $31.7 billion
2009 $47.4 billion
2010 $79.3 billion
2011 $75.4 billion
2012 $88.4 billion
2013 $79.6 billion
2014 $104 billion*
timated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Nope

What I referred to as "predatory banking" is fraud pure and simple. Not subprime or low income lending.

"Predatory" is when a bank forecloses on a house they never issued a mortgage on. This happened to tens of thousands of people. Or a bank which buys a mortgage and changes the terms.... "you owe a balloon payment every six months now, not what you signed but too bad." Or loan initiators who wrote up a mortgage for twice what the house cost, and pocketed 40% of the money. Etc etc etc

There were lots of other tricks being played, little of it was legal, and one of the things that did not happen under Obama was prosecution of so much bank crime.

 

Foreclosing on a bad loan is not fraud. What would you expect the bank to do if a borrower is not repaying the loan?

I don't see how it's possible for a bank unilaterally change the terms of a loan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dog said:

Foreclosing on a bad loan is not fraud. What would you expect the bank to do if a borrower is not repaying the loan?

I don't see how it's possible for a bank unilaterally change the terms of a loan.

Well, there you go. We're in agreement.

The problem here is that you want to ignore FRAUD and ABUSE, as I've said. It is very easy to find examples.

It is easily possible (although not legal in many states..... but you have to go to court and win in order to enforce these laws) for a bank..... or almost anybody else...... to buy a mortgage and change the terms. That's not the only form of fraud or abuse; a lot of loans were originated fraudulently, often without the mortgagee's knowledge.

 

Non-bank mortgage company settles charges with 49 states; agrees to pay $45 million and improve practices

https://blog.seattlepi.com/boomerconsumer/2018/01/04/non-bank-mortgage-company-settles-charges-with-47-states-agrees-to-pay-45-million-and-improve-practices/

Bamboozled: Bank 'pulls a fast one,' misplaces payments, threatens foreclosure, customer says

https://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2017/04/bamboozled_bank_pulls_a_fast_one_misplaces_mortgag.html

 

 

And more

This is mostly video https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/11/17/bank-of-america-mortgage-scam/

(quoted from above) "ERMA, N.J. (CBSNewYork) — Imagine paying your mortgage on time every month, and your bank takes your home away anyway.

It may not make any sense, but this mortgage mess is happening.

Holidays, birthdays, baby’s first steps — since 2004, Kim Shibles’ beloved Erma, New Jersey home has been the backdrop for everything.

“I would like to have back what they took,” she told CBS2’s Kristine Johnson.

She was forced out of the house in 2016, after the bank foreclosed.

“It turned my life upside down,” she said.

What’s worse her attorney Josh Denbeaux said it happened without Shibles ever having missed a mortgage payment." (end quote)

 

A slight twist on the same sad story

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/bank-america-florida-foreclosed-angry-homeowner-bofa/story?id=13775638

If you and your fellow righties were paying attention, you'd have heard enough of this kind of story on the regular every day news that you'd know your blame-the-victim narrative is bullshit. After all, it's you and your kind that are getting fleeced by your corporate overlords. But no, you like the hate-spew and the attitude, so you want to pull the whole country down if you can.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Nope

What I referred to as "predatory banking" is fraud pure and simple. Not subprime or low income lending.

"Predatory" is when a bank forecloses on a house they never issued a mortgage on. This happened to tens of thousands of people. Or a bank which buys a mortgage and changes the terms.... "you owe a balloon payment every six months now, not what you signed but too bad." Or loan initiators who wrote up a mortgage for twice what the house cost, and pocketed 40% of the money. Etc etc etc

There were lots of other tricks being played, little of it was legal, and one of the things that did not happen under Obama was prosecution of so much bank crime.

Steamer, my wife & I spent most of our careers in banking. Granted, that was here and not there but I think you better check your facts on some of that.

I fully agree that there was lots of criminal activity in the Wall Street world prior to '08 and a lot of people should have been jailed but most of your comments look like BS to me.

One example - terms of a mortgage can only be changed on renewal (re-writing), not arbitrarily mid-term. Mortgages are just about the most ironclad agreement anyone ever enters into.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Steamer, my wife & I spent most of our careers in banking. Granted, that was here and not there but I think you better check your facts on some of that.

I fully agree that there was lots of criminal activity in the Wall Street world prior to '08 and a lot of people should have been jailed but most of your comments look like BS to me.

One example - terms of a mortgage can only be changed on renewal (re-writing), not arbitrarily mid-term. Mortgages are just about the most ironclad agreement anyone ever enters into.

Great. Tell Wells Fargo and Bank of America that...... they have both admitted wrongdoing on mortgages and paid big fines. Look it up.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalists don’t get government bailouts, they rely on the market and their own ability. Lehman Brothers were capitalists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Great. Tell Wells Fargo and Bank of America that...... they have both admitted wrongdoing on mortgages and paid big fines. Look it up.

-DSK

Predatory banking and fraud are different things.

Both nasty and wrong but different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Predatory banking and fraud are different things.

Both nasty and wrong but different.

True, but they both have the same result. And they are both ignored by the righties "blame the victim" explanation

In many cases, people signed mortgages that they failed to read the fine print, which is dumb....... OTOH consider the statements made by many, about how misleading bank officers are about terms. The woman in the last story I cited above took out a 2nd mortgage which allowed the bank to foreclose on her property EVEN THOUGH SHE NEVER MISSED A PAYMENT. Effectively, the bank stole her equity, which I would assume was their intent for originated such a document in the first place. I'm also quite sure that the fine print was at least slightly obfuscating on the point, if not downright misleading. Is this fraud or predatory lending?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

True, but they both have the same result. And they are both ignored by the righties "blame the victim" explanation

In many cases, people signed mortgages that they failed to read the fine print, which is dumb....... OTOH consider the statements made by many, about how misleading bank officers are about terms. The woman in the last story I cited above took out a 2nd mortgage which allowed the bank to foreclose on her property EVEN THOUGH SHE NEVER MISSED A PAYMENT. Effectively, the bank stole her equity, which I would assume was their intent for originated such a document in the first place. I'm also quite sure that the fine print was at least slightly obfuscating on the point, if not downright misleading. Is this fraud or predatory lending?

-DSK

But what caused the sub-prime meltdown was the government. Compelling lenders to make sub-prime loans and creating a secondary market via the GSE's so the lenders could dump them. Notice, I did not blame anyone but the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

Our government was to blame for the sub-prime meltdown.

Im sure you have some good, solid academic work to back up that ridiculous statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

But what caused the sub-prime meltdown was the government. Compelling lenders to make sub-prime loans and creating a secondary market via the GSE's so the lenders could dump them. Notice, I did not blame anyone but the government.

Cough cough BULLSHIT cough cough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

Im sure you have some good, solid academic work to back up that ridiculous statement.

Not that you would understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dog said:

Not that you would understand.

 

9 minutes ago, Dog said:

But what caused the sub-prime meltdown was the government. Compelling lenders to make sub-prime loans and creating a secondary market via the GSE's so the lenders could dump them. Notice, I did not blame anyone but the government.

We can see by your stating the government created the secondary market that caused subprime you don't understand Dog.

Banks made sub-prime loans because they were profitable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007. As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million subprime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government. When these mortgages failed in unprecedented numbers in 2008, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S., they weakened all financial institutions and caused the financial crisis".

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dog said:

"

so you treat one interview with a guy with a dissenting opinion as gospel, and repeat it over and over and over. the same guy - Wallison - who said this back in 2000

Quote

Because much of what is classified as predatory lending involves loans to low-income, minority, and higher-risk borrowers, a central principle that should guide legislation and regulation in this area is the desirability of preserving access to subprime mortgage credit for such borrowers, who are most at risk of losing access to this market in the wake of misguided and punitive regulations. The democratization of consumer finance that has occurred over the past decade has created new opportunities for low-income consumers. This is now threatened by chilling effects that inappropriate regulations and laws might have on the supply of subprime credit to these consumers.

the same guy who ignored this

Mortgages originated for private securitization defaulted at much higher rates than those originated for Fannie and Freddie securitization, even when controlling for all other factors (such as the fact that Fannie and Freddie securitized virtually no subprime loans). Overall, private securitization mortgages defaulted at more than six times the rate of those originated for Fannie and Freddie securitization.

among many other things in his "dissent" https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2011/07/12/10011/why-wallison-is-wrong-about-the-genesis-of-the-u-s-housing-crisis/

and you wonder why you are a fucking joke here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

But what caused the sub-prime meltdown was the government. Compelling lenders to make sub-prime loans and creating a secondary market via the GSE's so the lenders could dump them. Notice, I did not blame anyone but the government.

So, the gov't forced banks at gunpoint to take these loans?

If you cannot grasp the math involved, which is very very basic...... which of these numbers is very much larger than the other (subprime lending vs capital losses by huge banks)................ and you cannot accept the facts presented which demonstrate that your narrative is wrong; then I guess you can always fall back on stubbornly repeating your dogma (pardon the pun).

Say it again, your chorus seems to be a bit slow taking up the chant

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

But what caused the sub-prime meltdown was the government. Compelling lenders to make sub-prime loans and creating a secondary market via the GSE's so the lenders could dump them. Notice, I did not blame anyone but the government.

More right wing lies.

Learn something about what you yap about so you won't look like so much of an ignorant fool.

In your case it will take a whole lot of learning but you can do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

More right wing lies.

Learn something about what you yap about so you won't look like so much of an ignorant fool.

In your case it will take a whole lot of learning but you can do it.

More left wing nothing at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert Mueller's investigators just keep questioning Roger Stone's associates



(snip) 

Why Miller is fighting so hard to avoid testimony isn’t clear. The Washington Post reports that the subpoena to him asked for information on WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, Guccifer 2, and DC Leaks. A Super PAC run by Stone also made a payment to a firm run by Miller during the 2016 campaign. 

(snip) 

2) Kristin Davis: Another recurring character in Stoneworld who’s caught Mueller’s interest is Kristin Davis, the former “Manhattan Madam” who gained national fame during the prostitution scandal that forced the resignation of New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer. Davis did some work for Stone, and ran for governor of New York in 2010 at Stone’s urging (her campaign manager was Andrew Miller). 

(snip) 

Then, when questions were raised about Stone’s claims to have advance knowledge of Assange’s plans, Stone put out a story that all his contact with WikiLeaks in 2016 was actually through an intermediary: Credico. 

It later emerged that this wasn’t true, because Stone and WikiLeaks exchanged Twitter direct messages. Additionally, Credico himself denied that he’d been a back channel between WikiLeaks and Stone, saying Stone was trying to make him “the fall guy.” 

Stone responded with fury. Emails he reportedly sent to Credico around April this year, according to reports by Mother Jones, the Wall Street Journal, and Yahoo News, include: 


(snip) 

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/11/17675288/mueller-roger-stone-trump-russia-investigation 

 

 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Robert Mueller's investigators just keep questioning Roger Stone's associates



(snip) 

Why Miller is fighting so hard to avoid testimony isn’t clear. The Washington Post reports that the subpoena to him asked for information on WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, Guccifer 2, and DC Leaks. A Super PAC run by Stone also made a payment to a firm run by Miller during the 2016 campaign. 

(snip) 

2) Kristin Davis: Another recurring character in Stoneworld who’s caught Mueller’s interest is Kristin Davis, the former “Manhattan Madam” who gained national fame during the prostitution scandal that forced the resignation of New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer. Davis did some work for Stone, and ran for governor of New York in 2010 at Stone’s urging (her campaign manager was Andrew Miller). 

(snip) 

Then, when questions were raised about Stone’s claims to have advance knowledge of Assange’s plans, Stone put out a story that all his contact with WikiLeaks in 2016 was actually through an intermediary: Credico. 

It later emerged that this wasn’t true, because Stone and WikiLeaks exchanged Twitter direct messages. Additionally, Credico himself denied that he’d been a back channel between WikiLeaks and Stone, saying Stone was trying to make him “the fall guy.” 

Stone responded with fury. Emails he reportedly sent to Credico around April this year, according to reports by Mother Jones, the Wall Street Journal, and Yahoo News, include: 


(snip) 

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/11/17675288/mueller-roger-stone-trump-russia-investigation 

 

 

Enough of those distractions.  The pedocRATS have a new hangout.  Voodoo Doughnut.  

https://munchies.vice.com/en_us/article/qvmxem/voodoo-doughnuts-is-the-target-of-a-new-pizzagate-esque-conspiracy-theory?utm_source=vicefbus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Check the basement!

Then  look between the wall studs

These people are light years beyond bat  shit crazy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dog said:

Because Frank and Co fucked with market incentives....

"His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators".

What quotas are you referring to? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Mark K said:

What quotas are you referring to? 

The ones that support whatabouting the blame onto the minority party because blacks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The ones that support whatabouting the blame onto the minority party because blacks. 

Well known fact Wall Street is no match for illegal dishwashers and hoodrats :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government forced the banks to loan blacks about a trillion bucks. I blame Al Sharpton. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, d'ranger said:

I believe they also offer half baked alien abductions. 

Is that like half-baked pizza. Finish it off in a 375 oven for 25 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Steamer, my wife & I spent most of our careers in banking. Granted, that was here and not there but I think you better check your facts on some of that.

I fully agree that there was lots of criminal activity in the Wall Street world prior to '08 and a lot of people should have been jailed but most of your comments look like BS to me.

One example - terms of a mortgage can only be changed on renewal (re-writing), not arbitrarily mid-term. Mortgages are just about the most ironclad agreement anyone ever enters into.

A couple years after the bailouts the bankers were still playing games.    A loan officer was trying to sabotage a business loan while steering me to a different bank and a new application fee.    It turns out he was quitting and I was his dowry for the new job.    I found another option but lost part of my application fee.   The crooked banker got nothing from me.   

A mortgage cannot be changed LEGALLY.     Not many customers can afford the legal department to match Wells Fargo when they do it anyway,   Likely the mortgage requires arbitration so you don’t even get a day in court.    You get to use an arbitration company that knows Wells Fargo represents repeat business, while you do not.   Will they be impartial?    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

Is that like half-baked pizza. Finish it off in a 375 oven for 25 minutes.

Proper aliens would be using a brick oven at 800F and the pizzas would cook a lot faster. Dunno if Jersey has any quality aliens, probably just a bunch of Papa Johns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Proper aliens would be using a brick oven at 800F and the pizzas would cook a lot faster. Dunno if Jersey has any quality aliens, probably just a bunch of Papa Johns.

Don't know about Jersey.  Land of my birth but have not lived there for 60+ yearS.  Now I live with Chicago deep dish and Milwaukee super thin cracker crust.  

Funny story.  Niece was out visiting a year and a half ago.  Sad story why, but we will skip that.  Anyhow, one night we had pizza for dinner.  She looked at the pizza and gave me the strangest look.  She has spent her entire life in the southern Jersey/Phila area.  Out in WI pizza is cut into small squares, called "tavern cut" rather than the traditional pie shaped wedge.  Could not figure out how to pick it up with no crust on a piece.  She learned fast.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mark K said:
On 8/11/2018 at 7:10 AM, Dog said:

Because Frank and Co fucked with market incentives....

"His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators".

What quotas are you referring to? 

He doesn't know, he's just repeating what he heard on Rush/Hannity.

Sort of like how he can't reconcile "the gov't created the demand" with the economic principles he supposedly believes in.

 

15 hours ago, Lark said:

A couple years after the bailouts the bankers were still playing games.    A loan officer was trying to sabotage a business loan while steering me to a different bank and a new application fee.    It turns out he was quitting and I was his dowry for the new job.    I found another option but lost part of my application fee.   The crooked banker got nothing from me.   

A mortgage cannot be changed LEGALLY.     Not many customers can afford the legal department to match Wells Fargo when they do it anyway,   Likely the mortgage requires arbitration so you don’t even get a day in court.    You get to use an arbitration company that knows Wells Fargo represents repeat business, while you do not.   Will they be impartial?    

I am somewhat suspicious about whether a mortgage can be changed, it's up to the states and state legislatures are even more subject to lobbying pressure than Congress. 25 years ago I would have said, definitely illegal in NC but after watching the NC legislature's shenanigans over the last decade or so, it would be easy for me to believe they've slipped a few jokers in the deck. Other states? No bet.

Mortgages trade hands nowadays like baseball cards.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fakenews said:

So Omarasso gets fired by John Kelly bu manages to record it in get this!!!

 

 

THE SITUATION ROOM!!

The ineptitude is staggering...

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/omarosa-shares-recording-of-john-kelly-firing-her-it-sounded-like-a-threat/

What was staggering to me is her Trumpian ability to be utterly self-centered. As if "the American people" give a rip about Omafukinrosa?? 

  This drip is a droplet of fog. Just like her former master, she is. He hires the best narcissists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Mark K said:

What was staggering to me is her Trumpian ability to be utterly self-centered. As if "the American people" give a rip about Omafukinrosa?? 

  This drip is a droplet of fog. Just like her former master, she is. He hires the best narcissists. 

They sure cared about her when her job was Token.  Now, not so much.  Hell hath no fury like a black women scorned.  If it weren't for bad news there would be no news at all (unless you restrict your news sources).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mark K said:

What was staggering to me is her Trumpian ability to be utterly self-centered. As if "the American people" give a rip about Omafukinrosa?? 

  This drip is a droplet of fog. Just like her former master, she is. He hires the best narcissists. 

Where is the things getting ugly, damage to rep and other conversations on the recording ? Is she waiting for a better deal to allow the networks to play those bits?

She seems to have let the WH know about the recording in the situation room (phones and other electronics were banned just after her firing) they must have offered her less than the book deal. Like Kellyanne Conway she goes to the highest bidder.

The takeaway....a secret recording of the COS in the situation room!!! How many others in and around the winter/summer/spring/autumn WHs  have recordings to protect their backs/future book deals?

"Here be Tapes"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, VhmSays said:

The takeaway....a secret recording of the COS in the situation room!!! How many others in and around the winter/summer/spring/autumn WHs  have recordings to protect their backs/future book deals?

"Here be Tapes"

How many foreign governments have attempted to hack the phones of these morons to spy on the white house from inside the white house?

the other take away of course is that the only thing Trump can create or manage is a reality TV shitshow and thats how he "organizes" things. Omarosa was kicked off in Season 1 and now she makes a surprise appearance in Season 2 with secret tapes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, VhmSays said:

Where is the things getting ugly, damage to rep and other conversations on the recording ? Is she waiting for a better deal to allow the networks to play those bits?

She seems to have let the WH know about the recording in the situation room (phones and other electronics were banned just after her firing) they must have offered her less than the book deal. Like Kellyanne Conway she goes to the highest bidder.

The takeaway....a secret recording of the COS in the situation room!!! How many others in and around the winter/summer/spring/autumn WHs  have recordings to protect their backs/future book deals?

"Here be Tapes"

  It's likely she really believes there is a there there in that tape, so if I had to bet it's the best she thinks she has. Some times I actually pity the self-absorbed. One's own private mental Idaho? Desperately lonely...

 

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just trying to bump us the value of her brand, just like her boss. 

I wonder how many more people have WH tapes.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Just trying to bump us the value of her brand, just like her boss. 

I wonder how many more people have WH tapes.....

How did she manage to get around the nondisclosure agreement? Won't that and the situation room recording (potentially illegal) bring about financial ruin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Just trying to bump us the value of her brand, just like her boss. 

I wonder how many more people have WH tapes.....

I wonder how many don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Nice! said:

I wonder how many don't.

Well, Cohen does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, VhmSays said:

How did she manage to get around the nondisclosure agreement? Won't that and the situation room recording (potentially illegal) bring about financial ruin?

Did she sign one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if she did -

Experts have said the agreements are not enforceable. Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told USA TODAY in March that “Public employees can’t be gagged by private agreements” and contended they are “unconstitutional.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/971279002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Even if she did -

Experts have said the agreements are not enforceable. Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told USA TODAY in March that “Public employees can’t be gagged by private agreements” and contended they are “unconstitutional.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/971279002

This one needs to go to court, quickly.  Get it shown as not-enforceable and that it can't be used to bully people into silence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mark K said:

  One's own private mental Idaho? Desperately lonely...

 

 

  

Nailed it.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike G said:

This one needs to go to court, quickly.  Get it shown as not-enforceable and that it can't be used to bully people into silence.

Would they just try and blanket all discussions as national security instead? A simple catch-all for them to police. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mad said:

Would they just try and blanket all discussions as national security instead? A simple catch-all for them to police. 

They are certainly using that excuse to throw tariffs around. Declaring martial law is just a shot away.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're a long way from Marshall Law, at least November.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is Marshall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Who is Marshall?

horizontal_01_1_15.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guessed this.

image.png.8d492de8b8cd292ed9b495950794f0cd.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

I guessed this.

image.png.8d492de8b8cd292ed9b495950794f0cd.png

If we go under Marshall Law, is there a possibility they will Marshawn Lynch me? I'm getting concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2018 at 11:40 PM, phillysailor said:

I'm sorry you are frustrated that I continue to say that the way Conservatism is practiced in America is evil, foolish and a threat to national security.

By focusing on the lady raising kids on a shoestring, and reserving all of your typed ire for her and her ilk, you give a pass to those who make the rules, bend the rules, break the rules and set new rules for themselves to bend, break & avoid.

But you continue to focus on her. You leave alone the top predators and focus on the ramoras, living off scraps. But in the next breath you say we've got to care for the kids, you're not mean, and everyone deserves healthcare if their family member gets sick.

Then abide by your stated goals. Sick the hounds on the top predators, expand healthcare options for the weak and vulnerable, make sure that the caregivers and the homemakers get support, and strip the rich of their capital gains tax breaks and the richest 1% tax breaks and the ability to offshore profits while enjoying protected life in the well regulated US of A. You'll get more bucks for your efforts and the tax penalty will be felt more fairly, as evidence by closing, rather than opening the wage and wealth gap. 

Just check stats on what has happened to average hourly wages, hours worked per family per week vs cost of healthcare, education and rent over decades. It's way more expensive to live these days, but the average guy or gal is working harder to take home less. This is by design. Conservatives would continue that trend, whereas Progressives would try to reverse it. The poor lady of your story is living this gradual slide into bankruptcy and hopelessness. Do you want her kids to grow up without hope so that your buddy can feel better about his choices?

We see that the world is getting hotter. Fires are burning in Sweden, Paris is sweltering, the polar regions are getting HOT, sea levels are rising. Do you get that Conservatives are WRONG about climate change? They were wrong about Iraq. They are ignoring obvious demographic shifts and doubling down on stopping immigration. Don't you think it's possible they might be wrong about what's good for the country's economy as well? 

That you'd even ask that question tells me that you really aren't understanding the point, and are instead still focused on the idea that non-liberals are wrong, and need to be "conquered".  It's actually good that you think that, because many on the right feel the same way about liberalism - that its an insidious evil that needs to be defeated.  

That attitude, IMHO, is wrong on both sides.  We don't need to vanquish those who think differently than we do, we need to intelligently discuss differences to the point that an understanding, if not agreement, can be reached without feeling like we need to get "the other side" to abandon their principles. 

Getting around to your comment w/r/t tax structure supporting the wealthy to the detriment of the rest of the population, you're right, and I've said that numerous times.  Here's why I mention things like the woman w/the EBT card:  I think that insulating people from the ramifications of poor decisions results in more poor decisions.  There's a balance, of course - nobody wants kids to starve or not have a bed to sleep in at night, but addressing the pattern of poor decisions ( which IMHO are more harmful overall than fiscal insecurity) doesn't seem to merit discussion by our more liberal friends.  

I think that focusing on problems and solutions instead of proving that someone else is wrong is a better approach, but, you have fun bein' you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then give people the knowledge how not to make poor decisions ..don't dangle payday loans, don't hard sell shit to those that can't afford stuff, don't place onerous fines, late payment fees etc on those already struggling.

Trouble with conservatives they give the poor a spoon to build their castles then chastise them when they use it to eat .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

then give people the knowledge how not to make poor decisions ..don't dangle payday loans, don't hard sell shit to those that can't afford stuff, don't place onerous fines, late payment fees etc on those already struggling.

Trouble with conservatives they give the poor a spoon to build their castles then chastise them when they use it to eat .

That is why I left Bank of America in favor of a small, local credit union, available only to people who live and/or work in our county.  I explained to a branch employee that when I started that account, it was a tw0-signature checking account shared with my father when I was about 10 years old, and the folks in that little local Ft. Lauderdale bank knew us by name.  That bank was swallowed up by a bigger fish, which was then swallowed by a bigger fish, and again, and again, and then by the precursor to BoA, Nations Bank.  Over that time period, the attitude changed from one where the bank existed to work for depositors, to the exact opposite.  Now, the big banks exist to suck money out of the entire country and pump it to NY.  They prey on those who can least afford it.  

And the people at my little local bank all know me by name again...and vice versa. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

That is why I left Bank of America in favor of a small, local credit union, available only to people who live and/or work in our county.  I explained to a branch employee that when I started that account, it was a tw0-signature checking account shared with my father when I was about 10 years old, and the folks in that little local Ft. Lauderdale bank knew us by name.  That bank was swallowed up by a bigger fish, which was then swallowed by a bigger fish, and again, and again, and then by the precursor to BoA, Nations Bank.  Over that time period, the attitude changed from one where the bank existed to work for depositors, to the exact opposite.  Now, the big banks exist to suck money out of the entire country and pump it to NY.  They prey on those who can least afford it.  

And the people at my little local bank all know me by name again...and vice versa. 

 

Same here!  Local Savings Bank, one local manager was in my High School class many years ago.  Their loans Real Estate mortgages conform to Fannie-Freddie specs, so they could sell them on, if they ever wanted to, but they have never sold any, in many decades in business.  The loan Committee meets once a week to approve or deny loans, the old fashioned way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2018 at 9:12 PM, Olsonist said:

It might have been conservatism, whatever that meant then, right up until Fox News + Alex Jones + Breitbart got ahold of it. At this point, it's fascism and has been for quite some time. Defending GHWB conservatism is pointless during the regime of Cheeto.

Conservatism ended in the Republican party with the rise of Newt Gingrich and then the Tea Party loonies.

It has been the lunatic right wing party since then.

It's only the conservatism and resistance to change of the sane party members that keeps them part of it. If they accepted what it actually is now instead of continuing to think it's the party it once was then it could die a long overdue death.

They should all look at the party platform during the Eisenhower years and reflect long & hard on what it means to be a patriotic conservative.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

Same here!  Local Savings Bank, one local manager was in my High School class many years ago.  Their loans Real Estate mortgages conform to Fannie-Freddie specs, so they could sell them on, if they ever wanted to, but they have never sold any, in many decades in business.  The loan Committee meets once a week to approve or deny loans, the old fashioned way.

I take it you weren't around for the S&L fiasco in the late 80's.

Wall Street Lite.

Strictly enforced financial regulations are the only way to keep those greedy psychopathic fuckers in line.

The only way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

I take it you weren't around for the S&L fiasco in the late 80's.

Wall Street Lite.

Strictly enforced financial regulations are the only way to keep those greedy psychopathic fuckers in line.

The only way.

 

Oh, I was there, alright!!  I was raising two young daughters, while my wife traveled for work, and doing drive-by appraisals for the same bank at $500/each on properties in default.  Then, "The Big Short" in 07-08 wiped us out of our family's waterfront primary residence of 30 years, and zeroed our incomes for nearly 5 years after, but we are much better off without it now!  30+ year plan with rentals is finally coming to fruition.  Looking forward to chucking the 40-50+ hours a week and daily commute in August 2021!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SloopJonB said:

I take it you weren't around for the S&L fiasco in the late 80's.

Wall Street Lite.

Strictly enforced financial regulations are the only way to keep those greedy psychopathic fuckers in line.

The only way.

Even then they still find ways to suck the blood of the little guys and girls. Our banking and financial industry is one of the worlds most profitable despite( by your standards) ..strict regulation..Good stuff you think eh?

However, despite our conservative Gov shilly shallying, they've finally been dragged kicking and screaming before a Royal Commission..Oh the corruption, double dealing and scandal thats coming out. They're in deep shit :)

https://financialservices.royalcommission.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Even then they still find ways to suck the blood of the little guys and girls. Our banking and financial industry is one of the worlds most profitable despite( by your standards) ..strict regulation..Good stuff you think eh?

However, despite our conservative Gov shilly shallying, they've finally been dragged kicking and screaming before a Royal Commission..Oh the corruption, double dealing and scandal thats coming out. They're in deep shit :)

https://financialservices.royalcommission.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx

 

Good to know that American bankers aren't the only Greedy, Crooked Bastards!!!  LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:
13 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

I take it you weren't around for the S&L fiasco in the late 80's.

Wall Street Lite.

Strictly enforced financial regulations are the only way to keep those greedy psychopathic fuckers in line.

The only way.

Even then they still find ways to suck the blood of the little guys and girls. Our banking and financial industry is one of the worlds most profitable despite( by your standards) ..strict regulation..Good stuff you think eh?

However, despite our conservative Gov shilly shallying, they've finally been dragged kicking and screaming before a Royal Commission..Oh the corruption, double dealing and scandal thats coming out. They're in deep shit :)

https://financialservices.royalcommission.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx

They should do it like the Royal Navy did with Admirals..... once in a while, take a few of them out and shoot them. Only this time, it would be to DIScourage the others.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Even then they still find ways to suck the blood of the little guys and girls. Our banking and financial industry is one of the worlds most profitable despite( by your standards) ..strict regulation..Good stuff you think eh?

However, despite our conservative Gov shilly shallying, they've finally been dragged kicking and screaming before a Royal Commission..Oh the corruption, double dealing and scandal thats coming out. They're in deep shit :)

https://financialservices.royalcommission.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx

Not the case in Canada. Bankers are the same everywhere. They keep trying to get the Bank Act reg's lightened up so they can indulge their greed but the Fed's keep them on a short leash.

Bank failures are almost unheard of here. We had no sub-prime meltdown, only collateral damage from the USA - like the rest of the world.

Banking here is also extremely profitable and stable but I like it that way - they are the foundation of the economy which puts them in a unique position,  not just another capitalist business.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Not the case in Canada. Bankers are the same everywhere. They keep trying to get the Bank Act reg's lightened up so they can indulge their greed but the Fed's keep them on a short leash.

Bank failures are almost unheard of here.

Banking here is also extremely profitable and stable but I like it that way - they are the foundation of the economy which puts them in a unique position,  not just another capitalist business.

That's what we thought too :)

Ours is proffitable, stable and rotten to the core.

It's the small people being stung under the covers..I havent been following that closely but the RC 's batting for the people.

It's odd..the industry super funds have come up smelling like roses (The union backed funds :) )

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-11/banking-royal-commission-roasts-nab-retail-super-funds/10107012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

  Here's why I mention things like the woman w/the EBT card:  I think that insulating people from the ramifications of poor decisions results in more poor decisions.  There's a balance, of course - nobody wants kids to starve or not have a bed to sleep in at night, but addressing the pattern of poor decisions ( which IMHO are more harmful overall than fiscal insecurity) doesn't seem to merit discussion by our more liberal friends.  

 

Conservatives see the mother, Liberals see the kids?

And which side of the aisle is promoting cheaper education?  I'm thinking better educated people don't make as many poor decisions, but that's not ALWAYS the case.

Mine is a VERY simplistic breakdown of some very complicated problems, but it's generally how I see the divide.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drip drip drip

"A growing body of evidence, however, indicates that the meeting may have been a setup -- part of a broad effort to tarnish the Trump campaign involving Hillary Clinton operatives employed by Kremlin-linked figures and Department of Justice officials. This view, that the real collusion may have taken place among those who arranged the meeting rather than the Trump officials who agreed to attend it, is supported by two disparate lines of evidence pulled together for the first time here: newly released records and a pattern of efforts to connect the Trump campaign to Russia."

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/08/13/trump_tower_meeting_looks_increasingly_like_a_setup.html

Could this be what Rudy was referring to?

In related news the FBI has finally fired Peter Strzok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

Drip drip drip

"A growing body of evidence, however, indicates that the meeting may have been a setup -- part of a broad effort to tarnish the Trump campaign involving Hillary Clinton operatives employed by Kremlin-linked figures and Department of Justice officials. This view, that the real collusion may have taken place among those who arranged the meeting rather than the Trump officials who agreed to attend it, is supported by two disparate lines of evidence pulled together for the first time here: newly released records and a pattern of efforts to connect the Trump campaign to Russia."

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/08/13/trump_tower_meeting_looks_increasingly_like_a_setup.html

Could this be what Rudy was referring to?

In related news the FBI has finally fired Peter Strzok

Did Hillary and Company tell Donnie Junior to lie about the meeting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

Did Hillary and Company tell Donnie Junior to lie about the meeting?

Not likley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Dog said:

Drip drip drip

"A growing body of evidence, however, indicates that the meeting may have been a setup -- part of a broad effort to tarnish the Trump campaign involving Hillary Clinton operatives employed by Kremlin-linked figures and Department of Justice officials. This view, that the real collusion may have taken place among those who arranged the meeting rather than the Trump officials who agreed to attend it, is supported by two disparate lines of evidence pulled together for the first time here: newly released records and a pattern of efforts to connect the Trump campaign to Russia."

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/08/13/trump_tower_meeting_looks_increasingly_like_a_setup.html

Could this be what Rudy was referring to?

In related news the FBI has finally fired Peter Strzok

What are the names of the Hillary Clinton operatives employed by the Kremlin and DOJ officials? Be specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites